>>>>What's the difference in your mind between Reagan who supported the Afgani Mujahadeen against the Soviets (assuming he knew what the CIA was doing), and Murtha who supported the Afgani Mujahadeen...
The difference between a sitting President, with Congressional backing, budget votes, World Leader interactions, Pentagon consults vs. Charles Wilson, acting on his own, calling in favors to steal money and pass out stinger missiles like candy that created a black market in US weapons??? Surely you jest!
But, I agree, the subject is Murtha.
So since Murtha was instrumental in funding the Islamic Militants....and money kept coming in that helped Sheik Rahman.... That would make him a Traitor in aiding enemies of the State. This was the point of my post.
Every time you say "steal money", you lose me. By "money was stolen", do you mean a congressman siphoned off some money for his pet mujahadeen operation, under cover of the classified program rules? Congressmen fund things this way lots of times, and it's regarded as legal theft, not illegal theft. Murtha is not distinguishable among his peers as a legal thief.
Regardless of that, let's say for the sake of argument it was "stolen" money that Murtha used to fund the afgani mujahadeen. There's a difference between theft and treason. The issue is WHO the money went to, not how it was obtained, that defines treason.
RE: "a sitting President, with Congressional backing, budget votes, World Leader interactions, Pentagon consults"
So the difference between Reagan and Murtha is illustrated by this maxim: "If 50 insiders send money to islamic militants, it's not treason, but if just one sends it, it is" ????